A nice potted history and many interesting points from a professional meteorologist. There has been alarmism of course - the one absolutely 100% predictable consequence of any scientific claim that man is changing the climate would be the onset of alarmism. Very irritating for a scientist.

But Bill is unconvincing on two central points. First, CO2 levels are rising steadily at 2 ppm per annum, which may be less than in the Villach Statement but still significant, with no sign of slowing down, though elementary physical chemistry tells us that reverse steps like absorption in the ocean will speed up in proportion to the rising concentration. Second, CO2 is certainly a greenhouse gas, so the starting premise ought to be, as it was for Arrhenius in 1896, that its concentration could or even should have an effect on climate. Of course, that expectation does not quantify the effect on climate, which can get mixed up with other separate causes of change.

However, to give the impression in the face of these facts, as Bill does, that there is nothing to worry about is going much too far. Yes, government policies must be prudent because there is a great deal at stake in rejecting fossil fuels as sources of our energy. Finding the right path between alarmism and prudent action is difficult when the politics depends on the electorate's balanced appreciation of the science. I don't think Bill's contribution helps.

Tombee, try to check your facts:
1. CO2 levels are NOT rising steadily at 2 ppm p.a. as you claim, but at 1.45 ppm, so you are out by more than 33%.
2. The % rate of growth of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 has been only 0.4% p.a. since 1958. That is why Bill K is right it will take until well into the next century before the IPCC’s doubling to 560 ppm is achieved.
3. Arrhenius is constantly being proved wrong – he predicted a rise in temperature of over 3oC for a 50% increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2, and for the over 40% we have so far managed since 1896 we have yet to reach 1oC.

Actually Tombee, basic arithmetic from the figures you have admitted, shows that the global warmists face a major problem in keeping the alarm going. The 2ppm a year increase which has remained about steady over the past decade adds up to CO2 levels increasing by 50 per cent over the century (2 x 100 is 200, and we're just under 400 now), not doubling. The forecast big temperature increases require a doubling.

Sure the rate of increase could itself increase but it would have to do so a lot faster than anything we're seen in the past few dacades. Then again it could decline. The carbon cycle theory is after all, particularly odd stuff. To get around the problem of C02 emissions being tiny compared to natural flows (about 2 per cent) it requires half of the emissions to be absorbed, they know not how, and the rest to hang around for decades..

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but then I'm not a highly trained scientist trying to make facts fit much-loved theories and computer models.

tom .. "3. Arrhenius is constantly being proved wrong – he predicted a rise in temperature of over 3oC for a 50% increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2, and for the over 40% we have so far managed since 1896 we have yet to reach 1oC."

This seems though to be a central plank to the alarmists arguments .. that this is fundamental physics and is well known.

if it is disproved, why do they still refer to it constantly?

I agree with you .. but wonder, are the alarmists just in denial about this?

Simple fact is that humans are not God. Stewardship of this planet has actually gone backwards since Green religion defying every ounce of logic has been embraced by god deniers. The High Priests and Evangelist of this religion sprout their garbage while raking in the money. So much for the 'science'being settled. Thankfully in Canada one of the parties pushing this rubbish has just been annilated.

I don't normally respond to comments on my comments because all opinions all valuable. But Tom Tiddler accuses me of not checking facts. As it happens, this morning before I penned my little contribution (which was meant to be a caution not to go to the opposite extreme in responding to alarmism) I printed out the last few years of CO2 data from Mauna Loa, got out my ruler and pencil, drew a line of best fit (which I would lay a bet is within a whisker of the Excel fit) and these are the numbers. Intercept on the left axis: 382.5 ppm; intercept on the right axis: 392.5 ppm; time covered: 5.0 years; slope precisely 2 ppm per year.

As for Curmudgeon, I made nothing of the delay in doubling of pre-industrial concentration, so I plead not guilty. Nor did I, or do I, try to make facts fit much-loved theories and computer models; I have none.

All I am saying is that, to a non-alarmist like me, Bill's article, in concentrating on attacking alarmism, goes too far. There is still plenty of room for the prospect of CO2-induced warming and climate change.